Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

Clause 35 - Applications for registration: early years childminders

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 17, line 27, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Maria Eagle.]

Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 32, after ‘give’, insert
‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in clause 36, page 18, line 13, after ‘give’, insert
‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.
No. 31, in clause 53, page 26, line 32, after ‘give’, insert
‘which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.
No. 34, in clause 54, page 27, line 13, after ‘give’, insert
‘which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.
 No. 44, in clause 61, page 31, line 19, after ‘give’, insert
‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters’.
No. 47, in clause 62, page 32, line 8, after ‘give’, insert
‘which relates directly to prescribed matters’.
No. 276, in page 32, line 32, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
No. 204, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert—
‘(ae)an order under section 35,’.
No. 207, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(ah)an order under section 53,’.
No. 209, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(aj)an order under section 61,’.
No. 210, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(ak)an order under section 62,’.

Julie Kirkbride: These are probing amendments to check whether the Government have got the right balance when it comes to the registration requirements for child minding. We clearly see the need for an inspector, a registration process and a central register. Conditions might well need to be set in certain circumstances to ensure that children are kept safely and properly while absent from their parents. However, we also want to see a light and transparent touch, which is why we would like the Government to reassure us that the right balance has been achieved.
Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 31, 34, 44 and 47 relate to the applicant being required to give information by the chief inspector. They would specify that the information should directly relate to prescribed matters. In seeking to include the extra phrase in the clause, we are trying to ensure that those who make an application will be aware that there is some limit to the information that the inspector can request. They will know exactly what pond the inspector will be fishing in. The amendments would mean that there was a rational and transparent limitation to the way in which the inspector could go about his business.
The change would apply to clauses 35, 36, 53, 54, 61 and 62, which deal respectively with applications to the chief inspector to register as early years child minders, early years providers and later years child minders, for children under eight; with other later years providers making an application in respect of premises; with child minders making voluntary applications to register; and with child care providers making voluntary applications to register. We have tried to cover the clauses under which, quite rightly, the inspector plays a role in the registration. As I have said, we would like to be reassured that that role is limited to what is relevant as opposed to covering a wider perspective. If the Minister has examples of when the inspector might wish to take a wider perspective into account, I would be grateful to hear from her.
We are keen that there should not be a fishing expedition for no good reason. A reasonable test is that the information should relate to prescribed matters. That seems to get the right balance and would mean that the information was relevant to registering as a child minder, but was not overly bureaucratic because of the broadness of the test. In other words, there would be a boundary to the questions that could be asked.
Amendments Nos. 204, 207, 209 and 210 would ensure that the provisions in clauses 35, 53, 61 and 62 would be subject to a statutory instrument and that they would return to the House before the Secretary of State could make changes to the regulations on registration. We want the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to ensure that the House has some control over the way in which such processes might be changed in the future.
This is a probing amendment. We are not concerned about any obvious issues at the moment, given that what the Government propose is reasonable, largely speaking. However, as a brake on making future changes we hope that the process might be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. That would mean that the Secretary of State would not wish to go through the process unless it was felt that there was a need to change the existing regulations.
The amendment would mean changes to the way applications have to be made to the chief inspector to register as an early years child minder or a later years child minder. Changes to the voluntary registration of child minders and other child care providers would have to be determined by statutory instrument rather than the stroke of a pen on the Secretary of State’s  desk. That is part of the light-touch approach we would like to see and dealing with the matter in this way would mean that such changes would be less likely to happen. On the whole, the way in which the Government have set out the case is perfectly reasonable, so we would like to know why they want the power to change it in the future. If they want that power, why should it not be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in a statutory instrument Committee? On that basis, I am interested to hear the Government’s view of the amendments.

Annette Brooke: I support amendment No. 276. I do not feel inclined to go into a long debate about “may” and “must”, and I am sure that no one else would want me to. I will not because I have done it so many times in relation to local plans and goodness knows what. The amendment refers to clause 62, which is quite a way on in the Bill. Subsection (6) states:
“The prescribed requirements for registration may included requirements relating to—
(a)the applicant
(b)the premises on which the childcare is being (or is to be) provided”,
and so on. It is vital that that provision should say “must” rather than “may”. I leave that for the Minister to contemplate. If we are seriously talking about a system of registration and regulation to improve quality, we should not be rather casual—that is implied by the word “may”—about the sort of information that has to be lodged in the register.

Maria Eagle: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (MissKirkbride) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on the amendments. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that they were probing amendments, so I hope that I can convince hon. Members that they are not necessary. I shall do my best.
The first group of amendments—Nos. 19, 22, 31, 34, 44, and 47—would require the chief inspector to restrict the information that he seeks to that which relates directly to prescribed matters. They would mean that the chief inspector could reasonably require the applicant to give only information that relates directly to matters that are prescribed.
The hon. Lady will have noticed that information requests are already limited to those that are reasonable. “Reasonable” is a well-known concept in the law, even if there is occasionally debate about what on earth it means. It sets a boundary beyond which the chief inspector cannot go. The hon. Lady perhaps feared that the clause would allow a fishing expedition. My first point to her is that the word “reasonably” already restricts any sudden desire by the chief inspector to go on fishing expeditions for unnecessary and unreasonable information.

Julie Kirkbride: I respect the Minister’s point. How would that then be enforced by the applicant? If the Bill were to say that a request for information was to  be for only prescribed matters, the applicant could make a case direct to the inspector. If it is a test of reasonableness, will the applicant have to go to court?

Maria Eagle: The ultimate arbiter of the meaning of reasonable is of course the court. That is one reason why we sometimes debate what it means. I suppose that the ultimate authority would be a judicial review, which is one way to test reasonableness, but that is rather over the top unless the applicant is very rich and has money to burn. It is a well-known fact that public office holders in this country do not abuse their office by going too far. That is because statutory powers contain the word “reasonable”.
The clause does not limit, as the amendment would, the information that the chief inspector might seek, beyond reasonableness, to prescribed matters. In certain eventualities, if he is to carry out his duties sensibly, he will need enough flexibility to be able to ask for information in addition to what is prescribed. That will then enable him to decide whether a person is suitable to be registered, so he does not need to go on multiple fishing expeditions and intrude into people’s lives. Were we to accept the amendment, in some instances the chief inspector might not have enough power to obtain that further information. That would not be helpful to the industry or to the person who has applied to be registered. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that, as the chief inspector’s powers are bound by reasonableness, which is the safeguard sought by her amendments, that will normally be sufficient.
Amendments Nos. 204, 207, 209 and 210 require the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations on the requirements that all childminders must meet for registration and group care providers must meet to be registered on the voluntary register. The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Committee must take seriously, as the Government do, the need to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers. The Bill contains a number of delegated powers.
There are key orders in the Bill that will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but these powers are the kind of regulations that are normally, and have been for some time in parliamentary custom and practice, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, we are not stepping out of line. Even though the regulations are being made under the negative procedure, they are laid on the Table of the House. Anybody with a concern about them can pray against them and ensure that there is a debate and that they are scrutinised more actively. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the affirmative procedure for every set of regulations to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny.
The House recognises these order-making powers as suitable for the negative procedure, so we are not stepping out of line or doing anything unusual. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will consider whether there are any concerns about or dangers in the powers proposed in the Bill for the negative procedure. The only other thing to say to the hon. Lady is that if there were an affirmative procedure for such regulations, we would all be doing a lot more  hour-and-a-half debates in Standing Committees, and we would probably need to open a few more Rooms and have a few more Chairmen available to enable us to do all the work. I hope that I have reassured her.
Under amendment No. 276, the requirements for the registration of group care providers, such as out-of-school clubs, would cover all matters listed in clause 62(6)(a) to (e). The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred specifically to that clause. It covers applications for group care providers who are not required to register but who choose to register on the Ofsted child care register. Clubs for the over-eights would be the most obvious example.
Clause 62 states that registration requirements may relate to the applicant, the premises, the arrangements for children on the premises, the person caring for the children and other persons on those premises. It clearly indicates what we propose to deal with in the registration requirements.
The hon. Lady wants “may” to be “must”. She deliberately decided not to have a proper philosophical discussion about the difference between “may” and “must”, which was a bit disappointing because I should have liked to get to the bottom of why she feels so strongly that “may” should be “must”. There is no doubt that the inspector will consider the information to which I have referred. “Must” is unnecessary; “may” is sufficient to give him the power to ensure that he considers the right information.
The hon. Lady should recall that providers will be subject to the requirements set in regulation. She will have seen the paper that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families provided for the Committee about the proposed regulations, as well as a paper outlining the proposals for the Ofsted child care registers. We intend to emphasise the importance that we place on those particular matters. She should have a sense of how we envisage the regulations developing.
We will also consult on the regulations underpinning the Ofsted child care register prior to implementing them. Having “may” means that the proposed consultation will be real. If we were to prescribe in primary legislation precisely what provisions should be included, and then consult on what they should be, we would prejudge the consultation. Having “may” in the primary legislation will enable us to take into account in the regulations any comments made in the consultation that the industry and others who are involved want to bring forward.

Annette Brooke: Is the Minister honestly suggesting that those requests should not be made? Surely, we need that information on the register. Nothing is on it that should not be provided. We need to know where the premises are and who runs the extended club, or whatever the particular provision is. “Must” does not  prohibit additional points being made, and it is difficult to foresee a situation in which any of that information should not be made available.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady is right that the inspector will want such information to be available when he decides whether to register a provider. However, there will be consultation with all those who have an interest in what ought to be included in the regulations underpinning the register. If, before the consultation, we were to prescribe what must be required, we would be prejudging the consultation’s outcome. There is no enormous difference in principle, but because we are going to consult, the flexibility of the current wording is helpful. She may disagree with that violently, or strongly enough to want to vote on her amendment, but that is our position. She appears unconvinced. Perhaps I have unconvinced her again, as I did on an earlier amendment, but that is as much as I can say. We may have to agree to disagree.
I also hope that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove has had sufficient reassurance to withdraw the amendment.

Julie Kirkbride: I am pleased to tell the Minister that she has largely persuaded me of her arguments, not least because the idea of spending more time in Standing Committee is quite a killer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Applications for registration: other early years providers

Amendment made: No. 142, in page 18, line 7, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Conditions on registration

Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 8, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 25, in page 19, line 9, at end insert
‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.
No. 26, in page 19, line 14, at end insert
‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.
No. 37, in clause 57, page 28, line 31, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.
No. 38, in clause 57, page 28, line 32, at end insert
‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.
No. 39, in clause 57, page 28, line 37, at end insert
‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.
No. 50, in clause 65, page 33, line 39, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.
No. 51, in clause 65, page 33, line 40, at end insert
‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.
No. 52, in clause 65, page 34, line 2, at end insert
‘, as he reasonably thinks fit.’.
No. 208, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(ai)an order under section 58,’.
No. 211, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—
‘(al)an order under section 66,’.

Julie Kirkbride: My arguments are similar to those used on the earlier group of amendments, but there is an interesting dimension. In the discussion on clause 35, the Minister persuaded us that the key test is one of reasonableness, and some of the amendments would introduce such a test. They would go further, however, and, as in the previous ones, require that the information that the chief inspector requests relates to prescribed matters. Given that debate, I am interested in the Minister’s arguments as to why the amendments that would introduce a reasonableness test should not be made.
Clause 38 allows the chief inspector to
“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”
at any time, and to vary or remove conditions at any time, on compulsorily registered early years providers. Such conditions should be reasonable and related to prescribed matters. Clause 57 introduces the same power to
“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”,
but on compulsorily registered later years providers, and clause 65 does the same thing for voluntarily registered providers.
The clauses are similar to those that we just debated, but they impose conditions on providers who are on the register. There should be a test of reasonableness, for all the reasons that the Minister set out. It would be unreasonable not to be reasonable and therefore the test should be included, even if she will not go as far as our other amendments on prescribed matters.
I could make similar arguments about the “prescribed matters” amendments. They are about ensuring fairness, transparency and a light touch, and preventing the chief inspector from going on fishing expeditions. Obviously, child care providers do an important job, and parents wish to be reassured about conditions. Nevertheless, there has to be a test of reasonableness for those providing that facility.
If the Minister wishes to resist the amendment, will she give an example to show why we should not limit the test of reasonableness to prescribed matters? I am interested to know why clause 28 is more open-ended. It sets out conditions that might relate to the cost of providing facilities, the range of equipment and all sorts of other things. It could involve a considerable expense for those already registered who are creating an environment for children. There should be a test of reasonableness for what is expected of them.
I am less enthusiastic about amendments Nos. 208 and 211, which would also require the affirmative resolution procedure for the provisions. I heard what the Minister said and I dare say that she could persuade me again. I am interested to hear her observations on why the provisions should not be subject to that procedure. If she wishes to stand firm against the amendment, that is all the more reason why the Committee should be able to consider such matters further if the Secretary of State wishes to make changes.

Maria Eagle: I hope again to convince the hon. Lady that her amendments are not required. The group as a whole concerns the conditions that can be attached to registration and the procedure for making regulations governing the activities of providers registered on the general child care register. Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 37, 39, 50 and 52 propose that the word “reasonable” be inserted in the provisions, allowing the chief inspector to impose conditions on registration.
Amendment Nos. 25, 38 and 51 would limit the conditions that a chief inspector may attach to registration to conditions relating to prescribed matters. He currently has powers to impose conditions on the registration of providers. Those are important because they give him the flexibility to ensure that the requirements that providers have to meet are appropriate to their circumstances.
The amendments would limit the conditions that the chief inspector may attach to the registrations to conditions that relate to prescribed matters. We have had a bit of a canter around that, but it is important that the chief inspector continues to have the flexibility to impose the conditions on registration that he thinks fit—rather than to have that flexibility limited to prescribed matters—to ensure that children are appropriately safeguarded in all situations. The clause will allow Ofsted to take into account individual circumstances that might require control over and above the general registration and regulatory requirements.
Perhaps an example will help. The chief inspector might want to impose conditions of registration that take into account the facilities available. He might decide that a provider may not care for children under the age of two because there are no nappy-changing facilities, which are necessary to meet hygiene conditions and requirements, and to ensure the privacy of children.
In addition, conditions are used to limit the number of children who can be cared for, or to say that the provider cannot care for children overnight. Those conditions, made by Ofsted, are printed on the certificate of registration that providers have to display so that parents can see the conditions and ensure that they are met. It is neither helpful nor necessary to restrict the conditions that can be placed on registration to prescribed matters because there will be circumstances in which the inspector is unable to impose the limits he thinks necessary to provide a safeguard. We cannot possibly prescribe all the instances in the Bill or in regulations, and the inspector needs to be able to exercise his professional judgment.
Conditions are placed on registration for entirely sensible reasons: to support the safeguarding of children and the improvement of their outcomes—that is what the Bill is about—by making provision comply with rules appropriate to the situation.
In respect of that wonderful word “reasonably”, amendments Nos. 24, 26, 37, 39, 50 and 52 make the sensible point that, if reasonableness is so important, why is it not in the Bill? It is a good argument, except that—

Tim Loughton: The Minister does not accept it.

Maria Eagle: Except that it is already implied. To put it in the Bill would not add anything. I shall try to convince the hon. Lady of that.
Clause 73 enables providers to appeal to the care standards tribunal against the imposition of a condition. Therefore, there is a route of recourse if providers believe that unreasonableness has been applied to their circumstances. That provides an independent element in the judgment of the reasonableness of the chief inspector’s actions, which should address the hon. Lady’s concerns.
As reasonableness is already implied, if we put it in the Bill, we will simply be repeating what the law already states in regard to the exercising of the chief inspector’s functions. If we were to begin to do that, we would, to be consistent, probably have to double the size of every Act of Parliament. Although the hon. Lady made a good and sensible argument, the word “reasonably” is not necessary and would simply add to the burden of words in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 208 and 211 require the regulations governing the activities of providers registered on the general child care register to be approved by both Houses before they come into force. A document has been made available outlining the proposed requirements for providers on the Ofsted child care register. Implementation of the regulations will be subject to discussion in Committee and subsequently during the formal consultation. The regulations will be used to support the registration requirements. Therefore, there will be a great deal of discussion with those on whom they will have an impact. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that that will allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which will enable those affected by them to know clearly what the requirements contain and to have an input during consultation.
We take the need for parliamentary scrutiny seriously, but the points that I made on the previous group of amendments are also pertinent to this group. I hope, therefore, that, instead of making them again, the hon. Lady will remember what I have said and be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Julie Kirkbride: I am a bit disappointed. It is always nice when the Government accept one of our amendments. For a moment I was in danger of  believing that the Minister would accept the test of reasonableness. However, I understand her reasoning, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - The learning and development requirements

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 20, line 16, leave out from ‘which’ to ‘, and’ in line 17 and insert
‘young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 20, line 16, leave out
‘are required to be taught to’
and insert
‘should be assimilated by babies and’.
No. 220, in page 20, line 16, leave out ‘taught to’ and insert ‘experienced or mastered by’.
No. 222, in page 20, line 35, at end insert—
‘(c)any particular teaching style to be prescribed, or
(d)any specific “curriculum content” to be delivered.’.

Annette Brooke: This is one of the most important clauses. For that reason alone, we must get the wording right. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that it is right, despite my continuing support for the early years foundation stage. I thank the Minister for circulating the document. I am not ready to be tested on it yet. I have read it, but I need to do more work on it and do not want her to ask me whether I have read page so-and-so. There is some excellent material in the document, and I am really pleased about that.
I hope that the Minister treats my amendments as the most serious that I have tabled.The main problem is the inclusion of the word “taught”. If we are talking about a curriculum—a vision—for nought to five-year-olds, clearly it is not appropriate to have teacher-initiated activities, which is how I interpret the word “taught”, throughout those stages. The document—I could not express this better myself—makes the point that there will be a mix of child-initiated learning and teacher-initiated learning. It is dangerous to include “taught”. The quality of the work force will be important for successful delivery, but things will take time. There could be a problem with people knowing that “taught” is in the Bill. Sometimes, the best-meaning parents in the world try to cram their children with information at a very early stage and, in doing so, possibly damage development. There are dangers.
Amendment No. 220 was my first stab; I prefer amendment No. 221, which is rather better. Rather than use the word “taught”, the Bill should say:
“young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability”.
The Minister obviously has drafting experts, but I feel that the amendment encompasses what we want to say. It does not preclude teaching, but it ensures that the approach is not unidirectional, which is basically what the Bill says. Someone pointed out that there is something sexist about amendment No. 220. If I could have expressed it in any other way, I would have done, because that is the last thing that I want to be.
I have thought long and hard about whether “play” should be included, but because there will obviously be some teacher-initiated activities at age four, it is difficult to use that word. However, I will give it some more thought.
On amendment No. 222, I said in my opening speech that we should have more “nots”. Subsection (5) states:
“A learning and development order may not require”.
I am pleased to see paragraph (a). I mentioned that I visited a first school in the past two weeks where it was clear that there was good teaching—I am happy to use the word “teaching”, possibly, in the context of four-year-olds. Even at that age, the good teacher-led process involved a mix of child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities throughout the day. The Minister laughs at my using the word “teaching”, but my example expresses exactly what I mean. I do not want a two-year-old to be taught in a traditional way. There will be some teacher-led activities, but the situation is different as we move through the different stages. The word “taught” is wrong in the context of nought to five-year-olds.
However, returning to the “nots”, amendment No. 222 provides that no particular teaching style should be prescribed and that no specific curriculum content should be delivered. I am trying to make the provision much looser, so that the Minister’s planned long consultation, which is to be applauded because the work will not be completed until 2008, is as open-ended as possible.
To open up the provision, the amendment introduces extra “nots” rather than what might be interpreted as a “must”. I know the Minister’s commitment to consulting the experts, and that is right, but this important clause needs to be less prescriptive. What is required is leadership and thrust, not prescription.

Tim Loughton: I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendments, and in particular amendment No. 221. Our amendment No. 113 seeks to achieve the same objective. Many of us see flashing lights when “taught” appears. That is the nub of the problem.
As I said, the Opposition think that the nought-to-two age group is crucial, and the way one interacts with babies, as we sought to call them—the Committee was not minded to back us in an earlier amendment—is different from what comes afterwards. That age group should be differentiated. The use of anything remotely educational and “schoolified”, as one of the groups put it, is inappropriate for that age group.
There are several welcome ways in which this clause and others that deal with this aspect of the Bill set out a lot of detail that we have not had before. The  objective of creating a single framework for the birth-to-three guidance, the foundations stage, the elements of national standards for under-eights day care and child minding is helpful. We must streamline and simplify the strategy when dealing with those children.
Just the mention of “taught” can be taken wrongly. It creates visions of ticking boxes and achievements that represent a scaled down version of what is expected of children as they go into the formal school system. Part of the problem is not having the regulations.
I welcome the vision that the Minister provided, but I am not sure how it will translate into regulations and guidance for the people providing the service. All of us should subscribe to the vision. I subscribe to section 15 in particular, which says:
“The aim of the Government is that the early years framework should replicate the things which good parents do as a matter of course for their children and which they would therefore expect to see in a good childcare setting.”
That is an important and key part of the vision. We are not trying to take the place of parents, nor impose things on them; we are trying to encourage, not impose, good parenting. In the past, the balance has often been lost.
Many of the children’s charities that have taken an interest are concerned. In their professional experience, they see problems with the use of “taught” and suggest an alternative wording to reflect the reality that children learn through play. Amendment No. 113 uses a phrase which, in terms of parliamentary lingo, is full of holes, I am sure. It states that the matters, skills and processes should be “assimilated” by babies and young children of two and under, rather than “taught” to them.
Assimilation is all about absorbing and taking things on board, and that is what the development of babies and young children is all about. Ours is a probing amendment, to put on record our objections to the use of the word “taught” and to try to come up with a better use of words that would dissuade anybody so minded from thinking that the provision was intended just to produce a miniature version of the assessment frameworks for schools, which apply later in a child’s life.
The explanatory notes use very educational language with regard to clause 41. They mention “six areas of learning” and use the phrase “expected to achieve by” in respect of young children. One would expect to see such things for schools and for later in a child’s life. The notes discuss:
“educational programmes, setting out what should be taught to young children”
and
“arrangements for assessing the learning”
of such children. I do not like such language, and it concerns us greatly. Local authorities, if they were so minded, could devise an assessment based on a slimmed-down, mini-version of the assessments for the development of children that apply once they get into primary schools and beyond. Such schemes would be entirely inappropriate for babies and young children.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. There is no doubt in my mind that the clause intends to give a directional steer for early years child care providers. The use of the word “taught” gives the provision a far more prescriptive sense than is intended, if we consider the vision in the guidelines that we have been given.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right; I should like to see the provision much more in terms of dissemination of the good practice that, as I pointed out, one would expect from the normal and natural good parenting that would be happening in any case.
This is a probing amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wishes to press her lead amendment to a vote, we will be minded to give it our support. I really think that the Government have to get away from the use of the word “taught”. It is only one word, but its implications and the extra ammunition given it by the explanatory notes are very concerning and could be dangerous. On that basis, I seek the Committee’s support of our amendment and that of the hon. Lady.

Helen Goodman: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the use of the word “taught”. I shall not support them if they press the amendment to a Division because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the phrase “mastered by” seems sexist and also, like the phrase “should be assimilated by”, gets us away from the idea that young children spend time having a range of experiences rather than achieving certain skills and being very outcome oriented.
Ministers, however, should remind themselves of what they were in charge of in writing the national child care strategy, which stated that activities should be
“underpinned by a play based approach to promoting children’s development and learning, building on children’s experiences to help them extend their skills and develop their understanding and confidence.”
I fear that the Bill reflects neither that nor what is in the birth-to-three framework, also produced several years ago by the Department for Education and Skills.

Andrew Selous: Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me, and one or two other Committee members, about what is sexist in any of the amendments. I am genuinely puzzled about what she means.

Helen Goodman: The word “mastered” is a rather old-fashioned and sexist word to use when we are talking about small children.
My concerns are strengthened in respect of communication, language and literacy, which is one of the areas of learning and development. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. There is a risk, with taught literacy for children under the age of five, that some people will push children to read and recognise letters a long time before they are ready to do it.
It is good if children know how to handle a book. Once they recognise that a book is not just an object, but is representational in that it contains pictures of things in the real world, and once they know that stories come from books, that is the beginning of their becoming an active learner. However, if we concentrate on taught literacy, we risk turning off small children. It is a mystery how children learn to read.

Justine Greening: I was listening with interest to the hon. Lady. I agree. When we picked up “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” we did not know whether we were reading a book, just enjoying a story or being taught, but having read it we enjoyed it, which meant that we developed personally.

Helen Goodman: That is a good example.
A child I knew well became obsessed with the tube map at the age of four and loved drawing it and reproducing the colours. He lived in London and travelled on the tube and realised that the tube map was a representation of the trains in which he journeyed to his nursery school. At that moment, it became clear that although he did not know any letters, he was going to learn to read quickly because he had made the connection between the symbols and what was going on in the world.
We will deal later with the quality of the training and qualifications, but we all know that we have a work force that need to be improved. Perhaps if the Minister does not accept the amendment, she will be realistic and consider the matter and, on Report, change “taught” to “experienced by”.

Justine Greening: I, too, support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
The clause is far too prescriptive. The reality is that other issues may be in conflict in respect of children of nought to two-years-old. Babies may be happy in a sandpit or doing whatever they are doing, but ensuring that all the boxes are ticked may hinder their personal, social and emotional development, and it may upset them if people have to ensure that they have covered all the areas.
I should love to hear more about the aspirational areas—problem solving, reasoning and numeracy—from Labour Members. I understand that there is a need to focus on that.
I support the amendment and although I have, perhaps, been slightly glib about one aspect of it, I hope that the Minister takes on board the serious point that it makes.

Julie Kirkbride: I should briefly like to agree with the points that have been made.
Children develop at different stages. A child could be damaged if they were pushed too hard to achieve all the goals that the Government have set out. It is not that Conservative Members do not understand why the Government want to do what is proposed. There are far too many children in our society whose chances are simply hopeless because of their experiences at  home, and my hon. Friends and I entirely support what the state is doing under the Bill to improve their chances.

Helen Goodman: I have just realised that there is something that I forgot to say. The points made about a play-based approach, rather than a teaching approach, were endorsed by the all-party group on play, which met earlier this week.

Julie Kirkbride: The hon. Lady is right to point that out. We know that she is a champion of the cause. I should have said that we are grateful for her support—her emotional support, if not her actual support when it comes to a vote. I hope that Ministers listen to the points that have been made. The Government are seeking to make child care available to everyone nationally. Clearly, with regard to those households where children are not properly looked after, the state can have a role in making up for what parents are not doing at home. That is of benefit not only to those children—that is the first priority—but to our society in general.
I understand where the Government are coming from in being so prescriptive, but it just does not seem to us that their approach would work entirely, because children develop at different rates. We cannot rush them; doing so may well hinder them. For many young children, personal development is as much progress as they can reasonably be expected to make; that is apart from the other goals set out in the clause. Achieving that personal development in an unhurried and unthreatening fashion—at their own pace and when they are ready for it—may help them to learn better when they go to mainstream school.
I worry that the Government are trying to do too much and are setting up a framework that will be antagonistic to those seeking to put it into practice. Sadly, it could end up being counter-productive for those children that the Government most want to help. I urge them to reconsider the matter of just how prescriptive they want to be, and I urge them to allow a little more flexibility in the way that child care providers can look after children in their charge.

Beverley Hughes: First, let me say that there is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I and among other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about what we are trying to achieve, and the kind of environment and experiences that we want for young children, whether in child care or in their educational settings.
Frankly, hon. Members are getting caught up on their interpretation of “taught”. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said about our approach being prescriptive; I completely reject that. If she looks in any detail at the documents that I circulated, particularly the framework direction of travel document, she will see that that is not the case.
Amendments Nos. 113, 220 and 221 seek, in one way or another, to remove the word “taught” in reference to young children and replace it with alternative wording. The first point to note is that  “taught” reflects language that is already used in the foundation stage and in the Education Act 2002 that was approved by the House for three and four-year-olds.

Annette Brooke: I do not know the answer to this, but is the word “taught” used in “Birth to Three Matters”?

Beverley Hughes: I cannot recall whether it is or not. I have no doubt that someone will tell me in a moment. I shall try to get an answer for the hon. Lady.
The point is that the early years foundation stage will cover the wide range of processes, planning and teaching needed by practitioners to provide an effective, stimulating, play-based environment to enable young children to learn and develop at their own pace—a pace that is appropriate to their age and ability. That includes practitioners establishing relationships with babies and young children and their parents; planning the learning environment; supporting and extending children’s play, learning and development; and observing and assessing children’s achievements; and planning for each child’s next steps. That is far from the formal education that I believe is in Members’ minds when they think of the word “taught”.

Justine Greening: These comments very much come out of those made to me by my constituents. Putney is a typical part of London. It has many young mothers and young families with small children and babies, and the concept of babies and young children being taught is raised with me on the doorstep. There is an issue in the wider world that will need to be addressed. The amendments reflect not just the Opposition’s perception of the clause but the perception of the outside world.

Beverley Hughes: Perhaps some of my comments later will clarify for the hon. Lady what we intend and what the meaning of the word “taught” is.
The early years foundation stage will continue to promote, as “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage already do, the kind of activities and experiences that all good parents
“do as a matter of course”
with their children—I was clear about including that phrase in the document, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham picked it out—and which they would therefore want to occur in any good child care setting. The standards are those that we set ourselves for our own children. My children are now in their 20s, but, had they had child care, that is what I would have wanted.
I cannot think of any activities that I as a parent did with my children that were not, to some extent, teaching. Children are not born knowing nursery rhymes, how to clean their teeth or how to tie their shoelaces. They are not born knowing how to speak. They learn that through interaction, initially with parents and, when they are not at home, with other adults. That is what we are talking about for child care.  One cannot distinguish the process of having fun and playing from the process of extending opportunities for young children to learn. Sometimes they learn by assimilation—by observing—but not always. They learn through doing things with others. Parents encourage young children to imitate them, to say “Daddy” or “Mummy”, to model their behaviour after them. We are teaching children all the time, are we not?

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister is very sexist to say “Daddy” first.

Beverley Hughes: I was reflecting other people’s common practice, not mine. I remember that my mother was perplexed when I took a conscious decision to refer to everything as she or her—dogs in the street, post people, everything—as a matter of course, to challenge the received wisdom that everything is assumed to be male unless proved otherwise.

Helen Goodman: The fact is that children who learn English as their first language always learn to say “Daddy” before they learn to say “Mummy” because it is easier for a child to make the d sound than the m sound. There is nothing sexist about that.

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for a more scientific explanation of what tends to happen in practice, for whatever reason.
To take this further, practitioners who read and speak to babies and young children are helping—or teaching—children’s early speech and language development. That activity also supports—or teaches—social development and interaction. I assure hon. Members that, as the document makes clear, we will make this interpretation clear in the supporting document for the EYFS on which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has kindly acknowledged, we plan to consult extensively.
The issue goes to the heart of what we mean by “teach”. We are referring, as the previous legislation has done, to its natural meaning. With respect, it is a mistake to equate that term with a formalised method of learning and teaching. That is what hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are doing.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. I can tell her that, from my speed reading of it, the word “taught” does not appear in “Birth to Three Matters”. What she is saying seems very much to apply to children above the age of two, which is why we differentiated in what we proposed earlier and in our use of the word “babies”. Unless she had very advanced children—I am sure she did—teaching them to recite nursery rhymes between the ages of nought and two would not have been a goer. Does she not see that there is a difference between those who are aged nought to two years and those who are above two? That is what we are trying to get at in our amendments.

Beverley Hughes: I do not accept that there is a difference, in that I think that the experience of the child is one of continuous development, and a continuous thirst for new things and for stimulation. The role of adults, be they parents or other carers, is one in which they quite naturally try to provide those opportunities and extend the range of children’s experience and therefore what they can do. What are picture books for? We sit with babies on our knees reading picture books, talking about the pictures and encouraging children to point and to recognise what is in the picture. Through that interaction, children are learning and adults are teaching.
The point is that we are using the natural meaning of the word “teaching”. We made such a reference earlier in the debate in relation to another phrase. The “Oxford English Dictionary” gives four meanings for the verb “to teach”. The first relates to doing so for a living. The second relates to imparting information or a skill to a person about a subject. The third relates to putting forward as fact or principle. The fourth is to cause to adopt—I could say “assimilate”—a practice and so on by example or experience. That is precisely what we are talking about.
 The word “teach” encompasses all of those means by which children acquire new skills, knowledge and experience and all of the mechanisms by which adults help them to do so, either in an unguided way, by letting children experience things and reflecting that back to them, or in a more directed way. I assure hon. Members that that is the meaning that we are using. It is very wide-ranging and all the documents that we produced endorse that.

Justine Greening: I thank the Minister for her definition of the word “taught”. There is still some concern in my mind about using it. The fourth definition that she mentioned included the words “to cause to adopt”, which sound pushy. The whole ethos is that children will learn and will adopt a behaviour or skill by example or experience. That exemplifies our concerns. The play-based approach is far more voluntary and far less pushy.

Beverley Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point. She is falling back on what is in her own head: what teaching means to her. I am saying that we are using the term in the widest sense: the sense that, in terms of the definitions that I have read out, is accepted. With regard to “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage, it is used in a sense that practitioners are already comfortable with and use implicitly. I am advised that although we do not use the word “teach” in “Birth to Three Matters”, it refers to the environment in which young children are cared for and educated, which is a similar term and similar points could be made about it.
The framework is set out in the definition and approach given and it gives practitioners examples of the sort of experiences that young children need in order to develop. I shall give some examples from the listening and responding part of the section entitled “A skilful communicator” because the issue of literacy has been raised. The effective practice that is encouraged  to help children develop this part of their language ability includes encouraging playfulness, turn-taking and responses, including peek-a-boo and rhymes with young babies; talking to babies about what they have done through the day so that they will link words with actions, such as welcoming and preparing lunch; being able to explore and talk about things that interest young children indoors and outdoors, listening and responding to their questions, both serious and playful; and extending the range of stories, songs, games and rhymes from their own and other cultures and language. I do not think that any hon. Member could say that this a prescriptive, teacher-led, didactic approach of the sort that was referred to implicitly in the concerns of Opposition Members.
Amendment No. 220 would require the child to have some form of “mastery”. I shall not get into the argument of whether that is a masculine term; we have been there already. Apart from the fact that children learn at very different rates, some will appear to be accomplished—if I may use that term—at all that they are being shown and experiencing, while others will not. Children acquire those accomplishments in a number of different ways.
When we were preparing for today’s sitting—I admit it was rather late in the day and we may have got a bit hysterical: well, not hysterical, but we were seeing the funny side of things—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary speculated whether the proposals meant not showing a child how to tie his shoelaces because that might be too didactic, but setting a pair of shoelaces and a shoe in front of him and saying, “Right, Johnny. Experience your shoelaces.” I am being facetious, but Opposition Members are going too far in suggesting that we are talking about didactic teaching.

Tim Loughton: That is not a good example. It is more like teaching a dog tricks; that is what we are concerned about. What is much more important is why a child has to tie their shoelaces. If they did not they would fall over and then there is the environment round them to consider, blah, blah, blah. Simply considering the act of teaching a child to tie shoelaces is to risk ticking a box showing whether they have been taught to do various tricks, which is not what it is all about—certainly not at ages nought to two. That is the difference between us.

Beverley Hughes: I would be very surprised if there is not a parent in the country who has not attempted to teach their child to tie their shoelaces or brush their teeth.

Tim Loughton: Absolutely. That is not the point.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the point. I think that it is the point. The way in which children learn depends on a variety of different actions and methodologies used by the people caring for them. That will include, in some instances, guidance from the experience of seeing things done and being encouraged to imitate them and acquire the skill. That is true of young babies as well as children aged three and four, but not in terms of the example of tying shoelaces.
Amendment No. 222 would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying any teaching style and any curriculum content, which would include appropriate learning and development activities in early years provision. We know from research, whose findings we are implementing, that the centres that produce the best outcomes for children use play environments to provide the basis of instructive learning. We want to continue that. The most effective pedagogy, if I may use that term, is a mixture of experienced guidance by teachers or carers, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, and the provision of freely chosen but instructive play activities. Even then, when the child will be able to choose what to do and how to do it, and to play in the playhouse or whatever it is, the practitioner should more systematically observe what the children are doing and helping them, in a non-directive way, to get the most out of the activity. Therefore, while the child’s experience will be free play and activity much of the time, the practitioner must observe what the child is doing—

Helen Goodman: Earlier on, my right hon. Friend referred to peek-a-boo, which is a very good example. It is not a game about communication, but a first lesson in epistemology. I am sure that no babies know that, because when children play peek-a-boo what they are learning is that the mother, or whoever it is, is present even when the child cannot see her. The child finds that amusing and simply thinks that it is a game, but the practitioner knows that the child is discovering something about the world.

Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend. She endorses my point. However, amendment No. 222 would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying play-based learning, because that is a methodology, or phonics as part of the curriculum. I am sure that hon. Members would not want to do that.
In the current guidance we stress that the curriculum refers to
”everything children do, see, hear or feel in their setting, both planned and unplanned.”
Our approach is to give practitioners not prescription but examples of good practice that they can use to improve outcomes for young children.
I hope that, with that reassurance and those interpretations, particularly of the word “teaching”, Opposition Ms will not press their amendment.

Annette Brooke: I agree with most of what the Minister said, but I am disappointed that she will not reconsider the wording.
It is an obvious point, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the heading of clause 41. “The learning and development requirements” is a perfectly satisfactory heading. That brings us to ask whether there is a difference between learning and teaching. I believe that there is.
Most of the Bills on which I have served have been home affairs Bills, in which we try hard to get the words right because we know that they will be tested in courts of law. The words in this Bill will be used by the  practitioners in the field, so it is immaterial whether a dictionary supports the wording. There is a difference between the meaning of a word on the surface and its connotations.

Tim Loughton: I agree. The problem is that if we do not have a debate on what “taught” means, those who have to make the assessments, in whatever form they are, can have a different interpretation—one that the Minister claims she does not mean and which we certainly do not mean. By reading the Bill in that way, the interpretation could become a reality.

Annette Brooke: That is exactly my point.

Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Lady accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the practitioners—those with whom we will consult—are the experts? As they already use the term in that way, they are not confused by the Government’s intention to use it in the Bill for a second time.

Annette Brooke: We need to distinguish between practitioners at different levels. I am talking about the well meaning and talented person who helps out at the local playgroup. Some of the press comments following the launch of the Bill were misguided, describing the early years foundation stage as madness. However, some people making those statements are self-proclaimed experts and their views carry a lot of weight in our press. The Minister must have been disappointed that what some people said about the early years foundation stage became a front-page story. I am committed to that stage, so I want it to work in the best possible way.
Owing to the way in which the amendments were selected, amendment No. 221 has come before amendment No. 220. I shall never understand that process, but it probably makes sense. I might push amendment No. 221, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham supported, to a vote. I hope that the Minister reconsiders the amendment. I realise that it is not perfect. I do not have the skills to produce it in the right language, but its sentiments are better than the provision in the Bill.
It was a shot in the dark when I asked the Minister whether “taught” was in “Birth to Three Matters”. I was impressed by the document, and I thought that “taught” would not be in it, so I am pleased that I was right. Page 10 says:
“As babies explore the world through touch, sight, sound, taste, smell and movement, their sensory and physical explorations affect the patterns that are laid down in the brain.”
Is that being “taught”? I do not think it is, not in my interpretation of the word, nor in the dictionary definition to “cause to adopt”, which sounds unidirectional to me.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will endorse another part of the document, which states:
“As they engage in pretend play with gestures and actions, feelings and relationships, ideas and words, they become increasingly imaginative. Children become creative”.
They are not being taught to be creative. One cannot be taught to become creative. The document says that children
“become creative through exploration and discovery as they experiment with sound, media and movement.”
The Government have provided so much excellent material that it argues my case for me.
When we use the word “teaching”, and when we get the sort of newspaper stories that followed the launch of the Bill, I am put in mind of a row of little baby chairs with perhaps six babies—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting that that is what the Minister means, but it is a connotation of what is in the clause.
The Minister should reconsider amendment No. 221, as the clause is critical for setting the scene for what we all want to achieve. We must get the wording right.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 6, Noes 8.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past One o’clock.